If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Accompanied condition - explained

Reason for "Accompanied Condition" when deer stalking.The six species of deer found in this country form an important and valued element of our flora and fauna. They are all, however, thriving and surveys conducted by various societies have shown them to be increasing in both numbers and geographic spread. In order to ensure the welfare of deer, protecting them from starvation due to overgrazing, and from road traffic accidents, it is important that they are managed.
It is equally important to protect other creatures sharing their habitat from the results of overgrazing, as well as to prevent the deer from causing unacceptable damage to crops and trees. Usually the management of deer means that they have to be 'culled' and it is important that the cull be carried out efficiently and humanely, by people who understand exactly what they are doing.
The law requires that any business or recreational activity is carried out safely in all respects: deer stalking is no exception, and the deer stalker has a legal responsibility to ensure their actions pose the minimum risk to anyone.
The laws concerning deer stalking are many and complex for a novice and having the correct permissions and the correct calibre of rifle on your Firearms Certificate is just the beginning.
To minimise the risk to public safety, Chief officers of police are empowered to impose conditions on firearms certificates and the condition applied in the case of a novice deerstalker that he must be accompanied by an experienced deerstalker is one such condition.
This condition is only temporary and relies on the novice gaining experience by accompanying an experienced deerstalker and gaining the confidence and experience of using his own personal rifle and learning new techniques over a period of time.
Once his mentor is satisfied that he has gained the necessary knowledge and is competent enough to go deer stalking without supervision he can put this in writing and inform the licensing authority that in his opinion the condition can safely be removed from the firearm certificate.
The Deer Management Qualification deer stalking level 1 certificate assesses the under-pinning technical knowledge and marksmanship skill expected of an unsupervised deerstalker and is a good starting point for novice deerstalkers to begin their training.

An example of an experienced deerstalker is a person who has gained his deer stalking experience over a number of years and does not have any land restrictions on his deer stalking condition. Preferably a person who has completed the Deer Management Qualification deer stalking level 1 and 2 certificates.

"It's halfway down the hill, directly below that tree next to a rock that looks like a bell-end"

with DMQ being registered at Marford mill I can just imagine they want to sort it out and do themselves out of business
Though that explanation was probably one of the better ones for not enforcing DSC's

Thing is, I've already done the paid stalks and the accompanied stalks using estate rifles. I am by no means an expert but I have shot 5 in the last 3 outings using other peoples equipment... now that I have my own ground and my own rifle I am restricted.

"It's halfway down the hill, directly below that tree next to a rock that looks like a bell-end"

I feel that BASC and other Associations should take a hold of this situation and get it sorted once and for all.

BASC and other Associations are unable to sort it!

We stalkers have to realise that unless you are a domestic landowner with deer present and the ground is suitable for stalking and you alone stalk , any other stalking under lease, verbal agreement or business arrangement is classed as an 'undertaking' and is subject to the Health & Safety legislation that exists in the UK. In this respect, the undertaker (Stalkers, Game Shoots etc) have to demonstrate competence either by experience and knowledge or passing accepted/approved courses relevant to the matter in hand, which the DMQ Level 1 and 2 are for deer stalking!

In this instance, it would appear that the Police are now merely extending this legislation and applying this in the Granting or Conditional Granting of the FAC based on the applicant's submitted information.

Si- I would suggest that the Police consider that your booked days are with a guide who takes you out and does all the safety stuff, work etc based on their experience/qualification and that there may be no instruction and training given, where as a Supervisors roles is to train and educate you to ensure you know the rudiments and do not endanger the Public.

This is why the likes of the FC and other forest management companies are demanding risk assessments, method statements, DSC Level 1 or 2 etc etc as it is a legislative requirement which in the past may have been overlooked by Land owners granting permission to stalk, but with increased firearms incidents is becoming more of a focus and derriere covering exercise. The same applies to Shoots (Pheasant, Duck, Partidge etc) , Foxing and Vermin Control where they are present on others ground and should comply with H&S legislation and the owners in reality should be checking that procedures are in place. Ignorance of the law has permitted these activities to go on and is only highlighted or resolved after an incident or court case.

We may not like it, however, the current legislation has been in place certainly since 1974 (not old enough to remember the Factories, Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act) and we have to get our house in order if we are to ensure our continued participation in the sport/work/activity and possession of an acceptable FAC.

In this instance, it would appear that the Police are now merely extending this legislation and applying this in the Granting or Conditional Granting of the FAC based on the applicant's submitted information.

I'm not sure that I quite understand what the word 'merely' is meant to indicate in the above sentence.

From the paragraph Si has submitted, one might be forgiven for thinking that the police are jumbling up a number of matters concerning trendy eco-babble, animal welfare and their actual firearms licencing duties in order to produce what somone unused to recognising fallacy in arguments might mistake for a justification under current firearms law of 'mentoring conditions'.

If I were Si, I think I'd be tempted to write to them in order to ask them specifically what their worries are with respect to the safety of the public as a result of his stalking on his own. As they themselves have pointed out in their flannelly essay in self-justification, the CCs discretionary conditions relate only to the safety of the public. It is a FAC, not a DSC, that they are issuing.

I'm not sure that I quite understand what the word 'merely' is meant to indicate in the above sentence.

From the paragraph Si has submitted, one might be forgiven for thinking that the police are jumbling up a number of matters concerning trendy eco-babble, animal welfare and their actual firearms licencing duties in order to produce what somone unused to recognising fallacy in arguments might mistake for a justification under current firearms law of 'mentoring conditions'.

If I were Si, I think I'd be tempted to write to them in order to ask them specifically what their worries are with respect to the safety of the public as a result of his stalking on his own. As they themselves have pointed out in their flannelly essay in self-justification, the CCs discretionary conditions relate only to the safety of the public. It is a FAC, not a DSC, that they are issuing.

Dalua- the law of the land guides the Police in their duties and in this case, due to the circumstances presented to them they appear to be applying them as Part of the Firearms Certificate process as a condition where the applicant had not demonstrated his competency and there is a concern that this inexperience has a Public Safety issue..

I cannot comment with Authority on the opening paragraphs of the Explanation as I am not in the FLO business, to me it would appear that the Police are attempting to substantiate the need for deer stalking to ensure their Political Correctness and to prevent antis/animal welfare do gooders from calling them into question. Rather than the eco-babble flannel as you suggest

In respect of the condition, the Police were obviously not satisfied with the experience or knowledge that was inserted in the Application and on this basis have inserted the 'mentoring condition' in order to comply with the obligation placed on them and their duty to protect Public Safety and comply with Health & Safety legislation required under Section 27 of the Firearms Act. Until such times as Si can demonstrate to them that he has the requisite competency (not saying he does not already but this requires to be shown) their risk assessment will continue to show a high risk, till this is reduced through certified and supervised experience, training and knowledge.

I have been out on bought days and apart from a shooting test to demonstrate capability of hitting a defined target, there has been no instruction on rifle safety, safe backstops, humane shot distance etc, therefore, IMHO would not consider this as evidence of competency to own/use a high powered rifle which has ability to fatally impact on public safety in inexperienced hands.

I don't hear people complain when they require a qualified driver to sit beside them to permit them to drive a car on a Provisional Licence; nor the need to sit their theory test (same as DSC L1) and driving test (DSC L2)- exact same for shooting!!! Only it has become accepted in the course of time for drivers. Before I get barraged, I fully accept that there is a multitude of stalkers out there that have a vast amount of knowledge and experience gained without DMQ and which far outweighs various Level 1 and 2 holders, but they had to start somewhere and no doubt under father, uncle or keeper supervision.

Again in my view, the closing paragraphs of the explanation are not stating that DMQ is mandatory more that this is what the CC would consider is a route to demonstrating overall competency. The only requirement they are placing under the Condition is that a mentor has to sign off that he considers the FAC holder is competent after a period of supervision (a la driving!)

Good post firsttimer.... the only part I disagree with is where you say "the risk assessment will continue to show a high risk"
If this was the case then surely they would have insisted on evidence of supervised experience before allowing a .243 rifle? Which is sat there in my cabinet until I can arrange for an accomplished deer stalker to meet me at my stalking ground and act as my mentor.

"It's halfway down the hill, directly below that tree next to a rock that looks like a bell-end"